Re: Time and Freewill

2008-09-09 Thread nichomachus
On Sep 9, 11:30 pm, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/9/10 Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Uv, One of the concerns people have with free will or the lack thereof is that if physics is deterministic,

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

2008-05-01 Thread nichomachus
You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;) On May 1, 2:16 pm, Brian Tenneson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been collected?  I would like to get my hands on such. --Brian On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal

Re: Which mathematical structure -is- the universe in Physics?

2008-04-25 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 24, 12:08 pm, Brian Tenneson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was attempting to -invalidate- that argument against the existence of the universe, actually, by saying that in three truth values, which the Physicists can't rule out as being the more accurate logic of their universe, the

Re: Which mathematical structure -is- the universe in Physics?

2008-04-25 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 25, 5:27 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 24-avr.-08, à 18:26, nichomachus a écrit : On Apr 22, 11:28 pm, Brian Tenneson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps Hilbert was right and Physics ought to have been axiomatized when he suggested it.  ;)  Then again

Re: Which mathematical structure -is- the universe in Physics?

2008-04-24 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 22, 11:28 pm, Brian Tenneson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps Hilbert was right and Physics ought to have been axiomatized when he suggested it.  ;)  Then again, there might not have been a motivation to until recently with Tegmark's MUH paper and related material (like by David

Re: QTI --- Expanding brains

2008-04-22 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 20, 6:10 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 01:20:21PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also recorded in a reality out there that seems independent of our brains.  For example when we are

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-22 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 3:46 pm, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Nichomachus, decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set  up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history  that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced  unlikely histories since that

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-19 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nichomachus wrote: On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Telmo Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set  up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history  that you like

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 16, 11:16 am, Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, 2008/4/16, nichomachus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:  On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit :   On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On first blush, it would seem to be irrelevant to the fact that there are possible histories in which the second law is not found to hold. All the atom and rifle apparatus does is eliminate the living subject in those branches where the decay occurs, leaving the subject alive in only the unlikely

Re: The prestige

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 17, 5:17 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 15:13, nichomachus (Steve) a écrit : The Prestige, with Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Andy Serkis and David Bowie as Nikola Tesla... I also highly recommend this very entertaining movie that I

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-18 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all  branches of the (quantum) multiverse? I'm not saying that. I would

Re: The prestige

2008-04-16 Thread nichomachus
The Prestige, with Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Andy Serkis and David Bowie as Nikola Tesla... I also highly recommend this very entertaining movie that I saw last week. Unfortunately, Bruno, I don't see the connection between this film and the computationalist hypothesis.

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-16 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 16, 4:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 16-avr.-08, à 03:24, Russell Standish a écrit : On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:23AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: First off, how is it that the MWI does not imply quantum immortality? MWI is just quantum mechanics without the

Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread nichomachus
In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into him upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of radioactive material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the self-awareness of the physicist

Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

2008-04-14 Thread nichomachus
On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further to this, to say that the 2nd law is falsified, we'd have to have circumstances where the less likely outcome ocurred more frequently than the more often. (ie entropy decreases more often than it increases). But this begs

Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics

2008-03-27 Thread nichomachus
I have been following this discussion and I wanted to respond to this point because I fail to see why this is such a damning criticism of the MUH. How is in inconsistent to affirm the existence and reality of mututally exclusive axiom sets? I realize how that sounds so I would like to amplify

Re: Discussion of the MUH

2008-03-06 Thread nichomachus
Hi, I am new to this list. I am glad to see that there are others interested in Tegmark's ideas. I have been aware of his ideas since October but have largely agreed with them since prior to that. by that I mean that I had reasoned to similar conclusions prior to leaning that they had been so